Fox v. Crunch, LLC., et al
| Joseph Fox |
| Crunch, LLC and Crunch Norcal, LLC |
| 2:2020cv00706 |
| April 3, 2020 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of California |
| John A Mendez |
| Kendall J Newman |
| Labor: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 |
| Both |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on June 1, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 6 WITHDRAWAL of #5 Motion to Remand, filed by Joseph Fox. (Park, Daniel) |
| Filing 5 MOTION to REMAND Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1447 by Joseph Fox. Motion Hearing set for 6/16/2020 at 01:30 PM in Courtroom 6 (JAM) before District Judge John A. Mendez. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order)(Park, Daniel) Modified on 5/4/2020 (Reader, L). |
| Filing 4 CERTIFICATE of SERVICE by Crunch Norcal, LLC, Crunch, LLC re #1 Notice of Removal,. (Nakabayashi, Shannon) |
| Filing 3 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT by Defendants Crunch Norcal, LLC, Crunch, LLC. (Nakabayashi, Shannon) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL NEW CASE DOCUMENTS ISSUED (Attachments: #1 Consent Form, #2 Order re Filing Requirements, #3 VDRP) (Tupolo, A) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE of REMOVAL from Sacramento Superior Court, case number 34-2020-00276101 by Crunch, LLC, Crunch Norcal, LLC. (Filing fee $ 400, receipt number 0972-8828306) (Attachments: #1 Declaration of Daniel Gallagher ISO Defendants Notice of Removal, #2 Civil Cover Sheet)(Nakabayashi, Shannon) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the California Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
